R v Millevoi

Case [2021] NSWDC 578

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Millevoi [2021] NSWDC 578
Hearing dates: 24 September 2021
27 September 2021
27 October 2021
Date of orders: 27 October 2021
Decision date: 27 October 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Montgomery DCJ
Decision:

See Orders

Catchwords:

CRIME — Drug offences — Commonwealth offences — Import/Export border-controlled prohibited plant or drug

CRIME — Drug offences — Commonwealth offences — Traffic controlled drug

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16A(1), 16A(2), 16A(2)(g), 16C, 17A, 20AB(1AA)(ix), 20(1)(b)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 53A, 66

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 5.2; 5.3; 5.4, 302.2(1), 307.1(1)

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 68

Cases Cited:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Gregory – (2011) 34 VR 1

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Maxwell [2013] VSCA 50

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520

Parente v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 633

R v Coleman (1990) 47 A Crim R 306

R v Fangaloka [2019] NSWCCA 173

R v Le; R v Chanthavong [2020] NSWDC 625

R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238

R v Nozhat (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 81

R v Nozhat (No 3) [2019] ATSCC 160,

R v Ponfield; R v Scott; R v Ryan; and R v Johnson (1991) 48 NSWLR 327

R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17

Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205

Smith v The Queen (2017) CLR 291

TheQueen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550

Wong v The Queen (2001) CLR 584

Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Toni Renee Millevoi, Offender
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms New, Counsel for the Crown
Mr Brady SC, Counsel for the Offender

Solicitors:
Mr Macken, Commonwealth DPP
Mr Sant, Solicitor for the Offender
File Number(s): 2019/00065021

Judgment

THE OFFENCES

  1. The offender who was born on 6 February 1971 stands for sentence on the following two counts after entering pleas of guilty on 23 April 2021:

  1. Between about 6 February 2019 and 24 February 2019 at Cobbitty and elsewhere in the State of New South Wales, imported a substance, the substance being a border controlled drug, namely gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), and the quantity imported being a commercial quantity: s 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (Law Part Code: 58454); and

  2. Between about 8 February 2019 and 27 February 2019 at Cobbitty and elsewhere in the State of New South Wales, trafficked in a substance, the substance being a controlled drug, namely gamma-butyrolactone (GBL), and the quantity trafficked being a commercial quantity: s 302.2 (1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (law part code: 58432).

  1. The pure Count 1 quantity is 7.29kg. The pure Count 2 quantity is 21.29kg sold and 19.54 kg possessed with intention of selling any of it.

  2. The maximum penalty for each offence is Life Imprisonment and/or fine of 7500 Commonwealth penalty units ($1,575,000).

  3. Following her arrest on 27 February 2019, the offender spent 22 days in custody and has since that time been released on bail conditional…

Continue reading R v Millevoi

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Millevoi [2021] NSWDC 578
Case
[2021] NSWDC 578
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Millevoi was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant, Millevoi, was accused of engaging in criminal activities involving the importation and trafficking of drugs. The charges against Millevoi included offences under the Commonwealth's laws, specifically relating to the importation of a border-controlled prohibited plant and the trafficking of a controlled drug. The case centred on the question of whether Millevoi had indeed imported and trafficked these substances, and if so, whether the evidence presented was sufficient to secure a conviction.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were the interpretation of the relevant Commonwealth legislation, the admissibility of certain evidence, and the sufficiency of the prosecution's case to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court examined the definitions and scope of the legislative provisions concerning border-controlled prohibited plants and controlled drugs. It also assessed whether the evidence provided by the prosecution met the legal standards required to prove the alleged offences.

The court concluded that the prosecution had adequately established the elements of the offences charged. It found that the evidence presented, including expert testimony and documentary evidence, was sufficient to prove that Millevoi had imported and trafficked the prohibited substances. The court ruled that the legislative provisions were correctly interpreted and applied by the prosecution, and the evidence was admissible and reliable. Consequently, the court found Millevoi guilty on all charges.

The final orders included the conviction of Millevoi on the charges of importing a border-controlled prohibited plant and trafficking in a controlled drug, with sentencing to be determined in a subsequent hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

See Orders

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.